HARENDRA KUMAR CHATURVEDI @ HARENDRA CHATURVEDI v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

: M/s. P.C. Agrawal and Gautam Kejriwal, Advocates. : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. : M/s. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey and Anshuman, Advocates. ------------ O R D E R The petitioners have filed this application for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings as also the First Information Report of Kadamkuan P.S. Case No.806 of 2005 registered under Sections 385 and 387 I.P.C. It appears that one Vijay Karwa on behalf of Krishna Karwa, Ashish Ranjan and Om Prakash submitted a brief written report before the Officer Incharge, Kadamkuan P.S., inter alia, alleging that the said Vijay Karwa had purchased Flat No.301 in the name of his wife, Krishna Karwa in Sri Hari Arcade Apartment from M/s. Makan Developers and one Om Prakash had purchased in similar manner Flat No.102. It is further alleged that after both the purchasers had entered into their respective flats the land - 2 - lord Harendra Chaturvedi and his brothers were demanding Rs.1,50,000/- from them and on their inability to pay the said amount the land lords had put their own locks in the said flats. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that from a bare perusal of the F.I.R. no offence either under Section 385 or Section 387 can be said to have been made out as the ingredients of those offences are not present. In this connection, it was submitted that the petitioners alongwith their brothers and mother had entered into an agreement for development of the said plot of land with M/s. Makan Developers Private Limited, a Building Construction Company, through its Managing Director, Prabhat Kumar Choudhary, vide an agreement dated 14.11.1997 and as per the terms of the agreement the petitioners alongwith their brothers and mother being joint owners of the said plot of land were promised a share to the tune of 39% in the entire built up area to be constructed over the said land. It is further submitted that in the light of the terms of agreement the petitioners and other land lords were allotted Flat No.301(being Old No.B) vide a letter of allotment dated 24.1.1998. However, the developers did not fulfill the terms and conditions of the agreement as had been entered into and continued the construction work with gross negligence and breach of entire promise and design of the project and the petitioners alongwith other land lords found themselves to have been cheated by the said developers for which a Complaint Case No.1667(C) of 2001 had been filed and cognizance had been taken under Section 406 I.P.C. therein. It is further submitted that on 20.9.2005 the informant proclaiming herself to be the wife of the allottees in the said complex and accompanied by some police - 3 - officials forcibly broke open the lock of Flat No.301 belonging to the petitioners and other land lords and occupied the said flat notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners and other land lords were the real owners of the said flat and upon protest by the petitioners informant and accompanying policeman threatened and criminally intimated petitioners and sarcastically directed the petitioners to seek relief from the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, in the matter and the Senior Superintendent of Police when approached ignored the plea of the petitioners and refused to entertain their complaint presumably under the influence of the informant who happens to be an affluent and political bigwig. Krishna Karwa, the wife of the informant and on whose behalf the alleged written report was submitted, impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, has appeared and has filed a rejoinder and has submitted that after due investigation by the police a chargesheet had already been submitted and on the basis thereof cognizance had been taken. It was further submitted that while executing the development agreement (Annexure-2), the land lords and the developers had prepared a sketch map of the apartment and on the basis of such sketch map the developers may have issued a letter of allotment which has nothing to do with her or the present case. It was further submitted that subsequently under the norms of the prescribed authority the construction could be made only of 9 flats and the petitioners having raised a dispute over it finally filed a criminal case against the developers which was subsequently compromised whereby 39% of the built up area was to be given to the land lords. The land lords, it is further - 4 - submitted, also gave in writing that they will not make any claim upon Flat Nos.401, 301 and 102. It is further submitted that O.P. No.2 after purchasing Flat No.301 deposited the money with the developers whereafter she entered into the flat alongwith family and is living therein. The further submission is that the petitioners with a view to extort money tried to raise a dispute and put pressure upon O.P. No.2 in making payment of Rs.1,00,000/- and influenced thereby further sums were demanded and on refusal they put lock on the flat of O.P. No.2 which compelled her to approach the police. From the respective submissions of the parties, it appears that the entire matter involves looking into the disputed facts and figures and these cannot be done in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the circumstances, it would only be appropriate for the petitioners to raise all these issues at the time of framing of charge which they shall be at liberty to do. In view of the facts and the discussions made above, I find no merit in this application which is dismissed (Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated: The 24th day of June, 2009. Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.